PEP vs TGT Stock Comparison
PepsiCo, Inc. vs Target Corporation
TGT leads
TGT leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PEP on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TGT, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
PepsiCo, Inc.
Target Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TGT over PEP, 56 versus 55 as of Sep 2, 2026. TGT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while PEP holds the stronger quality profile. TGT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PEP. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TGT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TGT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare PepsiCo, Inc. and Target Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality30%64 vs 47PEP +17
- Momentum25%59 vs 71TGT +12
- Value30%45 vs 54TGT +9
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 55Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TGT. TGT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; PEP keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
TGT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PEP and TGT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TGT (Target Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
PEP (PepsiCo, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
TGTTGT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
PEPPEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TGTTGT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
TGTTGT on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
PEPPEP carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
PEPPEP on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TGT, analyst targets favor PEP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PEP | TGT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.6% | -8.2% | PEP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.1% | +56.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 21 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TGT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 55 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | PEP | revenue growth 24.4% vs -16.5%; EPS growth 28.2% vs -25.5%; ROE 50.4% vs 21.7%; gross margin 54% vs 28.1%; operating margin 15% vs 4.5% |
| Valuation | TGT | Value 45 vs 54 |
| Technicals | TGT | Price vs 50-day 1% vs 13.7%; vs 200-day -5.8% vs 32.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | PEP | Target upside 11.6% vs -8.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PEP and TGT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on TGT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1TGT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TGT +1
- 55 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- TGT +8
- 51 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- TGT +7
- 52 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- TGT +9
- 50 vs 59
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when TGT moved ahead of PEP.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.53%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.65%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.97%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.58%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1PEP closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to TGT's edge.
- 2PEP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TGT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TGT's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
PEP leads on balance| Metric | PEP | TGT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.4% | -16.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 28.2% | -25.5% |
| Gross margin | 54% | 28.1% |
| Operating margin | 15% | 4.5% |
| Return on equity | 50.4% | 21.7% |
| Debt to equity | 2.41 | 1.15 |
Technicals
TGT has the stronger structure| Metric | PEP | TGT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55 | 60.2 |
| ADX (14) | 11.7 | 36.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | 13.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.8% | 32.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.5% | 32.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PEP | TGT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.26 | 0.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.3 | 1.7 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.51 | 2.77 |
| Max drawdown | -20.9% | -13.8% |
| Current drawdown | -17.7% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.3% | 30.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PEP or TGT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TGT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 56 against PEP's 55. The edge comes from momentum and value. PEP is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is PEP or TGT the better buy right now?
TGT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TGT over PEP?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PEP leads Quality by 17 points; TGT leads Momentum by 12 points; TGT leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PEP or TGT?
Analyst price targets imply +11.6% upside for PEP and -8.2% for TGT, so the Street currently favors PEP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TGT. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, PEP or TGT?
TGT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TGT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, PEP or TGT?
PEP on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, PEP or TGT?
TGT on the Momentum factor, by 12 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, PEP or TGT?
PEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PEP carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PEP more profitable than TGT?
PEP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 54% vs 28.1%; operating margin 15% vs 4.5%; roe 50.4% vs 21.7%.
Is TGT's lead over PEP getting stronger or weaker?
TGT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-08, when TGT moved ahead of PEP.
What would change the PEP vs TGT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PEP closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to TGT's edge; PEP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TGT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TGT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about PEP and TGT?
PEP: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. TGT: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on PEP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TGT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PEP and TGT with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.